THE WAR ON SYRIA; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 118

<!-- -->

THE WAR ON SYRIA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from

California (Mr. McClintock) for 5 minutes.

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Speaker, Russia's diplomatic intervention in

the Syrian crisis is indeed welcome news. But whether it is real or

illusory, the President needs to step back from the dangerous precipice

that he has brought us to.

Certainly, he's made his case for war with Syria very clearly, that

the United States must punish the use of chemical weapons, and if we

don't, they're more likely to be used again. He assures us that the

strike will be limited and that it will aid moderates fighting the

regime. He warns that American credibility is at stake. The case is

quite clear: it is simply not convincing.

It's possible that an attack on Syria will convince Assad not to use

chemical weapons in the future. But it is just as likely to convince

him that, being in for a penny, he might as well be in for a pound and

unleash his entire chemical arsenal.

It is just as likely that an American strike on Syria will produce a

retaliatory strike, possibly by Hezbollah against Israel, requiring a

retaliatory strike by Israel, possibly on Iran, in a catastrophic chain

reaction.

We don't know where it will lead, but we can be sure that the morning

after the attack we would confront a most uncomfortable irony. In

retaliation for Assad killing Syrian civilians with chemical weapons,

the United States will have killed Syrian civilians with

\\\[\\\[\[Page\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-159/house-section/page/H5438) \[H5438\](https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-159/house-section/page/H5438)\\\]\\\]

conventional weapons, for civilian casualties are an unavoidable

tragedy of war.

Well, who would be our new allies in this war?

They'd be the Islamic forces that are responsible for their own

litany of atrocities, including the massacre of Syrian Christians, the

beheading of political opponents, summary executions of war prisoners

and acts of barbarity too depraved to be discussed in this forum. We

would be aiding and abetting those forces.

We're told that al Qaeda's not more than a fourth of our new

coalition and that the rest are moderates. Well, we were told the same

thing about Libya. We were told the same thing about the Muslim

Brotherhood in Egypt.

The problem with moderates in the Middle East is that there aren't

very many of them, and they're quickly overwhelmed in any coalition

they attempt.

Nor can such an attack be limited in duration or scope. The fact is,

once you have attacked another country, you are at war with that

country and its allies, whatever you wish to call it, and whatever you

later decide to do.

And wars have a very nasty way of taking turns that no one can

predict or control. World War I began with a series of obscure

incidents that quickly escalated into world war. And the Middle East

today is a veritable powder keg compared to the antebellum Europe of a

century ago.

Finally, we're told American credibility is on the line. Well,

chemical weapons are barbaric, but this isn't the first time they've

been used in modern times. They were used previously in Syria, in the

Yemeni civil war, by Iraq against Iran, by the Vietnamese against the

Cambodians, by Libya against Chad.

The only unique thing about this incident is that it is the first

time an American President has declared their use to be a \\\`\\\`red line.''

Our credibility was harmed by a foolish and reckless statement by the

President. Let us not further damage it with a foolish and reckless act

by Congress.

Wars are not something to be taken lightly. From the podium right

behind me, General MacArthur warned that, \\\`\\\`In war there is no

substitute for victory.''

If you're going to start a war, you'd better be prepared to put the

entire resources of the country behind it, to endure every setback

along the way, to utterly annihilate every vestige of the enemy, and to

install, by force, a government of our design and choosing, and to

maintain that government until all opposition is ceased. If you are not

willing to do that, then you have no business firing the first shot.

More than a decade of irresolute and aimless wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan should have taught us this lesson: that victory, and not

stalemate, must be the objective of any war. Yet, this would be a war

whose avowed objective is stalemate. That is self-defeating. It is

immoral.

The President has already made his case very clearly, and he is very

clearly wrong.

&nbsp;